Comments on: Civil diso-brattinesshttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/
funny (if not necessarily "passive-aggressive") notes from pissed-off peopleTue, 31 Mar 2015 20:35:41 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.8By: Aelwynhttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-378439
Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:23:37 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-378439In Hamilton, ON, one can’t smoke in public areas, including beneath umbrellas or canopies ANYWHERE (at a bar, in front of a store, etc). I get PISSED when people smoke right in front of a store, under the overhang. And I tell them. I am asthmatic, and severely allergic to chemicals (to the point that I can’t use cleaning chemicals–I use lemon juice and vinegar mostly).

I know a woman with COPD who goes outside and smokes, and it drives me NUTS. Seriously. And she’s on disability for COPD because she can’t walk for extended periods of time due to it. Make sense to anyone????

As for not being able to taste or smell–darn straight! My dad LOVES to smoke–loves the taste, the feel, the addiction. He quit 8 or so years ago (a year after my mum did) due to rising costs of cigarettes. He now admits he can smell and taste things he didn’t know he could. He eats VEGETABLES, something he never did while smoking because he hated the taste (but now loves it). Both he and my mother can’t stand the smell of cigarette smoke anymore.

Personally, I can smell it about half a city block away, if someone is smoking. If someone is a heavy smoker or just entered a shop I’m in after smoking, I can smell it. I hold my breath and move as far away as possible.

I live in a townhouse, and I’m lucky that when the next door neighbours are outside smoking up a storm (the one who was pregnant until recently, still did during her pregnancy and still does), I can close my door until they are done. It sucks that I can’t get my “fresh air” (as if Hamilton’s air is “fresh”, but I live near Ancaster where it is slightly more “fresh”), but at least I can’t smell it through vents or the cracks around my door anymore.

Not to mention the massive amount of illnesses I have that could very well be chalked up to my parents smoking as I grew up. Yay for nicotine (and the chemicals in cigarettes) sucking calcium out of bones, and affecting estrogen. I’m 31 and without a uterus, and had to relearn to walk due to endometriosis affecting nerves in my feet.

]]>By: Aelwynhttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-378438
Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:13:49 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-378438Not to mention the massive number of fires (and it’s growing every year) due to people falling asleep while smoking in bed or laying on the couch! There goes your entire rental unit.

And while renters in Ontario MUST have rental insurance, most don’t, so who pays for the damages????

]]>By: Aelwynhttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-378436
Thu, 30 Dec 2010 13:11:38 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-378436Actually, one can sue their neighbours (in a detached house/apartment/townhouse) to stop smoking if it affects their health. There was a legal precedent (it was in the news in Hamilton, ON).
]]>By: boiztwnhttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-376689
Tue, 07 Dec 2010 01:43:14 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-376689Then you should address the owner directly with a note or a face-to-face chat rather than posting a note dripping with hyperbolic OUTRAGE! in the common areas.

I have no tolerance for those that pull these kinds of pathetic stunts. Seen it all too often when it’s one-on-one and no one else really cares enough to contribute to the whiner’s crusade.

]]>By: boiztwnhttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-376687
Tue, 07 Dec 2010 01:33:06 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-376687I work in apartments management and get garbage like this all. the. time. “There’s a smoker on my floor and I can SMELL it; do something!”

It’s perfectly legal (now) to smoke in your unit, even if there’s a municipal or State ban. Bans extend to public areas. Even if I wanted to (and I don’t) file an eviction over something so trivial would be an LOL waste of time and investment, not to mention MONEY! Spending thousands of dollars to evict someone because some whiner on the same floor “demands” it, and then moves out at the end of their lease anyhow because they want to “try something different?” HA!

The worst you could do is write a mean, bluffing letter or give a similar phone call. You could even say “Move. Now.” But If someone doesn’t want to, they don’t have to. Smoking in your unit is completely within the law, even if the hallways smell of smoke or if some frail tenant whines it’s in their apartment (and trust, then you get the ubiquitous “I’M ATHSMATIC!!!” or “I JUST HAD NASAL SURGERY!!!!” like, lol whut? cries of grandeur).

Team response all. the. way. The response is 100% dead on in calling out all the other “sensitivity” whining that goes on in multi-unit buildings such as “she walks on her floor in HEELS!” or “that man was SCREAMING on his cell phone at 10:30 am!” File that whiny “please be my RA” garbage in the dustbin of history.

]]>By: Canthz_Bhttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-376647
Mon, 06 Dec 2010 11:13:33 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-376647That’s all I’m saying, BATS, smokers are not the assholes people would like to make us out to be, whether they happen to like the habit or not.
Non-smokers are much more likely to be the assholes in your life, they do not believe in “live and let live”, in large part.

I’m just asking that we all be reasonable and give each other some space.

]]>By: Stevahttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-376626
Mon, 06 Dec 2010 03:18:22 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-376626Yay! I’m from Hamilton
]]>By: BurstingAtTheSeamshttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-376603
Sun, 05 Dec 2010 21:15:22 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-376603LOL, @10.6. Never really thought about it, but truly, smokers do ten to be more considerate and aware of their output than fragranced people. =) Smokers are more noticeable, true, but many of them stand aside while smoking while the perfumed crowd blends in. Ha, ha, thanks for a good laugh.
]]>By: sallahhttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-376459
Thu, 02 Dec 2010 22:00:45 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-376459I own rental units. I have no smoking put into my leases. If someone decides to smoke in their units, I am not likely to evict them, but you can bet your bottom dollar they have lost their deposits and will be liable for any other damages due to their smoking… A normal deposit doesn’t cover a full paint job, cleaning the AC/heating unit, cleaning (and in one case, replacing carpets because of burn holes) a complete wipe down of cabinets and every single hard surface…

On one of my small two bedroom units, the cost of smoking, in damages would be close to 1600 dollars…

]]>By: Zarahttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-376452
Thu, 02 Dec 2010 18:27:11 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-376452Ah, more proof that smokers are selfish assholes.
]]>By: Canthz_Bhttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-376413
Thu, 02 Dec 2010 08:24:37 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-376413I take that back. It wasn’t simply a poor use of statistics.
It was more a poor understanding of how to interpret statistics, and knowing when the stats you’re using actually have any validity. Validity is a key component when it comes to statistics and what they say and don’t say…and what they can and should be used to prove.

Here are some questions you may want to ask about your 10%:

How much does a smoker need to smoke to reach a 10% higher risk of lung cancer than a non-smoker?
One cigarette a day? 10? 20? 50? You don’t know?
Then don’t spout meaningless statistics.

Does a guy who smokes half a pack a day have a higher or lower risk than a non-smoker who has worked with asbestos? What about the asbestos worker whose spouse did his laundry lo those may years? How did her exposure to asbestos and her infrequent smoking affect her? How do you assign statistical blame in these cases and others like them?
Many of the studies people rely upon today are flawed because investigators only looked for a correlation between smoking and lung cancer. The links between asbestos, radon, dioxins, pesticides, etc. and lung cancer were not widely known, and were not factored in.
When you do a study, you have to be extra careful that your study is not structured to find what you happen to be looking for.
So, I dispute your “10 times more likely” solely do to smoking claim.

Can you say “Quite a number of flawed study results out there when it comes to statistical conclusions”?

]]>By: Canthz_Bhttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-376400
Thu, 02 Dec 2010 05:46:56 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-376400Poor use of statistics.
90% of lung cancer is caused by cigarettes? I won’t take that at face value, but only because so many people have died, and are dying, of lung cancer (mesothelioma) caused by asbestos and industrial particulates.

10 times as much as what original risk though?
10 out of 100 instead of 1 in 100? 10 out of 1,000,000 as opposed to 1 in 1,000,000?
Where’s your reference point? Do you even know? Or is “10 times” more risk just scary enough to you to stop you thinking any more deeply?

Simply saying 10 times more likely is absolutely meaningless.

Now, if you maintain that non-smokers very rarely get lung cancer, then you’re also saying smokers’ risk is 10 times what is an extremely small original risk in the first place.
Not a very scary thing to say if you give it some thought.

Popular sugarless gum advertisement:“4 out of 5 dentists who chew gum recommend sugarless gum.”
What percentage of dentists chew gum?
Without that, the first statistic is meaningless.
If 100% of dentists chew gum, 80% recommend sugarless gum, but if only 10% of dentists chew gum, then as few as 8% of dentists recommend sugarless gum.
And that’s assuming that 100% of non-gum-chewing dentists do not recommend sugarless gum. We don’t even know what dentists who do not chew gum recommend. They weren’t part of the cited study group.
A seemingly easy to understand original statement, actually gave you no usable information whatsoever.

Statistics are slippery.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. Watch out for all of them. Statistics especially in your case.

]]>By: shepdhttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-376355
Thu, 02 Dec 2010 01:03:54 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-376355In ontario, despite any rules made by the landlord or in your rental agreement you may always smoke in your own apartment. That no smoking sign applies only to common areas (hallways, elevators) and nothing else.

So, putting it beside that sign is totally irrelevant.

If you don’t like it (I didn’t) either buy a detached house or write the government.

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but people in this province are anti-smoking insane.

]]>By: oihttp://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/2010/11/28/civil-diso-brattiness/comment-page-1/#comment-376305
Wed, 01 Dec 2010 15:45:33 +0000http://www.passiveaggressivenotes.com/?p=17057#comment-376305I think I need too explain my beef. I have got beef with the first NW because his assumed authority about the issue where clearly he does not have any. The no smoking sign does not clearly explain if the smoking is only prohibited in the hallways or it is completely non smoking building. It does not matter though. If it is completely non smoking building than he can’t authorize him to smoke in balcony. If it is banned only in hallways and such then too first NW does not have any right to suggest smokers smoke only in balcony. First, Who gave him right to do so? Second smoking in the balcony might not bother him but it might bother to the other neighbors. Selfish much?
See, If you are political party and propose to ban smoking in each and every building (residential, commercial) I very well vote yes to your proposal. The current law allows smokers to smoke than I am on their side. If the law does not then I am on your side. Basically I am on law’s side. You can’t go bending rules even if you think you are right. I am sure thief has ways to justify his thievery. In this case you are right but rules are the agreed upon system for differentiating right from wrong. You have to follow that. If you have beef with system take it to the system.
You know what? This is getting way to tangential for this comment. I am going to take this to on my blog. See ya!
]]>